Outset assists Carnival PLC

Outset assists Carnival PLC with defending maternity discrimination claim following redundancy exercise- Carnival Plc (ta Carnival UK) v Ms Laura Hunter [2024] EAT 167

In a significant recent ruling, Outset’s client, Carnival PLC was able to win on appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal “EAT”. Nicolas Moore, of Outset, was instructed to represent Carnival in this matter.  Carnival PLC is a well known operator of cruise lines, operating a number of brands, including Cunard and P&O Cruises (not to be confused with the entirely distinct P&O Ferries).

The factual background was that the claimant, a team leader at a contact centre, was on maternity leave at the point that Carnival decided that it needed to reduce its number of team leaders in the centre from 21 to 16. The Respondent operated a scoring system to decide on who was allocated the 16 remaining roles. The result of this scoring exercise being that the Claimant was not allocated a role, and she was made redundant.

In bringing claims to the employment tribunal, the claimant argued that when there was a reduction in headcount, she should have been allocated a role in accordance with regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312) “MAPLE”. Regulation 10 governs the right to a suitable alternative vacancy (in a redundancy situation) for staff on maternity leave or in the protected period (which is now the specified period before giving birth and after returning from maternity leave).

In the original tribunal hearing, it was found there had been a breach of regulation 10 of MAPLE. However, on appeal to the EAT, it was found that the decision to reduce headcount meant that no suitable alternative vacancies had been created for the purpose of regulation 10. This was on the basis that, as per Carnival’s submissions to the EAT, the decision to simply reduce headcount (but not change the roles) meant that there was no creation of new suitable alternative vacancies. By extension, if there was no creation of new suitable alternative vacancies, then regulation 10 of MAPLE was not triggered and the claimant did not have the right to be slotted into a role. Further, when, as in this case, the existing roles are not ceasing to exist, the protections under MAPLE are only triggered at the point that the redundancy is decided (not when there is merely a risk of redundancy).

The case is a helpful clarification of the actual parameters of the redundancy protections under regulation 10, and is even more important now that the longer protection period is in place. The difference in finding between the employment tribunal and the EAT, illustrates just how difficult this subject can be to navigate. Outset, as we did here for Carnival PLC, are ideally placed to offer constructive and commercial legal advice that allows organisations to conduct a fair and non-discriminatory redundancy process.